Climate Explained: Why Higher Carbon Dioxide Levels Aren’t Good News, Even If Plants Grow Faster
20 May
Science
At first sight, it seems more CO₂ can only be beneficial to plants, but things are a lot more complex than that. sarayut Thaneerat / Getty Images
By Sebastian Leuzinger
Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.
If you have a question you'd like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz
If carbon dioxide levels were to double, how much increase in plant growth would this cause? How much of the world's deserts would disappear due to plants' increased drought tolerance in a high carbon dioxide environment?
Compared to pre-industrial levels, the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere will have doubled in about 20 to 30 years, depending on how much CO₂ we emit over the coming years. More CO₂ generally leads to higher rates of photosynthesis and less water consumption in plants.
At first sight, it seems more CO₂ can only be beneficial to plants, but things are a lot more complex than that.
<p>Let's look at the first part of the question.</p><p>Some plants do grow faster under elevated levels of atmospheric CO₂, but this happens mostly in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0098847215300253" target="_blank">crops</a> and young trees, and generally not in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2128-9?proof=trueHere" target="_blank">mature forests</a>.</p><p>Even if plants grew twice as fast under doubled CO₂ levels, it would not mean they strip twice as much CO₂ from the atmosphere. Plants take carbon from the atmosphere as they grow, but that carbon is going straight back via natural decomposition when plants die or when they are harvested and consumed.</p><p>At best, you might be <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-your-backyard-lawn-doesnt-help-reduce-carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere-122312" target="_blank">mowing your lawn twice as often</a> or harvesting your plantation forests earlier.</p><p>The most important aspect is how long the carbon stays locked away from the atmosphere - and this is where we have to make a clear distinction between increased carbon flux (faster growth) or an increasing carbon pool (<a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6321/130.summary" target="_blank">actual carbon sequestration</a>). Your bank account is a useful analogy to illustrate this difference: fluxes are transfers, pools are balances.</p>
The Global Carbon Budget
<p>Of the almost 10 billion tonnes (gigatonnes, or Gt) of carbon we emit every year through the burning of fossil fuels, only about half accumulates in the atmosphere. Around a quarter ends up in the ocean (about 2.4 Gt), and the remainder (about 3 Gt) is thought to be <a href="https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/10/2141/2018/" target="_blank">taken up by terrestrial plants</a>.</p><p>While the ocean and the atmospheric sinks are relatively easy to quantify, the terrestrial sink isn't. In fact, the 3 Gt can be thought of more as an unaccounted residual. Ultimately, the emitted carbon needs to go somewhere, and if it isn't the ocean or the atmosphere, it must be the land.</p><p>So yes, the terrestrial system takes up a substantial proportion of the carbon we emit, but the attribution of this sink to elevated levels of CO₂ is difficult. This is because many other factors may contribute to the land carbon sink: rising temperature, increased use of fertilisers and atmospheric nitrogen deposition, changed land management (including land abandonment), and changes in species composition.</p><p><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-03818-2" target="_blank">Current estimates</a> assign about a quarter of this land sink to elevated levels of CO₂, but estimates are very uncertain.</p><p>In summary, rising CO₂ leads to faster plant growth - sometimes. And this increased growth only partly contributes to sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. The important questions are how long this carbon is locked away from the atmosphere, and how much longer the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0274-8" target="_blank">currently observed land sink will continue</a>.</p><p>The second part of the question refers to a side-effect of rising levels of CO₂ in the air: the fact that it enables plants to save water.</p><p>Plants regulate the exchange of carbon dioxide and water vapour by opening or closing small pores, called stomata, on the surface of their leaves. Under higher concentrations of CO₂, they can reduce the opening of these pores, and that in turn means they <a href="https://theconversation.com/rising-carbon-dioxide-is-making-the-worlds-plants-more-water-wise-79427" target="_blank">lose less water</a>.</p><p>This alleviates drought stress in already dry areas. But again, the issue is more complex because CO₂ is not the only parameter that changes. Dry areas also get warmer, which means that more water evaporates and this often compensates for the water-saving effect.</p><p>Overall, rising CO₂ has contributed to some degree to the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004" target="_blank">greening of Earth</a>, but it is likely that this trend will not continue under the much more complex combination of global change drivers, particularly in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0098847217301168" target="_blank">arid regions</a>.</p>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sebastian-leuzinger-797584" target="_blank">Sebastian Leuzinger</a> is a Professor at Auckland University of Technology.</em></p><p><em>Disclosure statement: Sebastian Leuzinger receives funding from the Royal Society.</em></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-higher-carbon-dioxide-levels-arent-good-news-even-if-some-plants-grow-faster-137235" target="_blank"><em>The Conversation.</em></a></p>From Your Site Articles
- Plant More Trees—Young Forests Use Carbon Most Effectively ... ›
- New Research Finds Plants Will Feast on Increased CO2, But Only ... ›
- 8 Ways to Sequester Carbon to Avoid Climate Catastrophe - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Once carbon dioxide concentrations became low enough (around 300 parts per million) between two and three million years ago, the current ice age cycle began. sodar99 / Getty Images
By James Renwick
Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.
If you have a question you'd like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz
Earth had several periods of high carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and high temperatures over the last several million years. Can you explain what caused these periods, given that there was no burning of fossil fuels or other sources of human created carbon dioxide release during those times?
Burning fossil fuels or vegetation is one way to put carbon dioxide into the air – and it is something we have become very good at. Humans are generating nearly 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year, mostly by burning fossil fuels.
<p>Carbon dioxide stays in the air <a href="https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php" target="_blank">for centuries to millennia</a> and it builds up over time. Since we began the systematic use of coal and oil for fuel, around 300 years ago, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has gone up by almost half.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzI4MTk4NC9vcmlnaW4uZ2lmIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNzUxNDc5NH0.GxG5zlOmzrFahpUrC6MNCzaw70WWCEHhcH2XF8A-17M/img.gif?width=980" id="fbe04" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8a3d03f2b40ceab9b18c3ef63a5774cf" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<p>Apart from the emissions we add, carbon dioxide concentrations in the air go up and down as part of the natural <a href="https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle" target="_blank">carbon cycle</a>, driven by exchanges between the air, the oceans and the biosphere (life on earth), and ultimately by geological processes.</p>
Natural Changes in Carbon Dioxide
<p>Every year, carbon dioxide concentrations rise and fall a little as plants grow in spring and summer and die off in the autumn and winter. The timing of this <a href="https://niwa.co.nz/atmosphere/our-data/trace-gas-plots/carbon-dioxide" target="_blank">seasonal rise and fall</a> is tied to northern hemisphere seasons, as most of the land surface on Earth is there.</p><p>The oceans also play an active role in the carbon cycle, contributing to variations over a few months to slow shifts over centuries. Ocean water takes up carbon dioxide directly in an exchange <a href="https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/ocean-atmosphere-co2-exchange/" target="_blank">between the air and seawater</a>. Tiny marine plants use carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and many microscopic marine organisms use carbon compounds to make shells. When these marine micro-organisms die and sink to the seafloor, they take the carbon with them.</p><p>Collectively, the biosphere (ecosystems on land and in soils) and the oceans are absorbing about <a href="https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/co2-reservoir/" target="_blank">half of all human-emitted carbon dioxide</a>, and this slows the rate of climate change. But as the climate continues to change and the oceans warm up further, it is not clear whether the biosphere and oceans will continue absorbing such a large fraction of our emissions. As water warms, it is less able to absorb carbon dioxide, and as the climate changes, many ecosystems become stressed and are less able to photosynthesise carbon dioxide.</p>Earth’s Deep Climate History
<p>On time scales of hundreds of thousands to millions of years, carbon dioxide concentrations in the air have varied hugely, and so has global climate.</p><p>This <a href="https://www.skepticalscience.com/weathering.html" target="_blank">long-term carbon cycle</a> involves the formation and decay of the Earth's surface itself: tectonic plate activity, the build-up and weathering of mountain chains, prolonged volcanic activity, and the emergence of new seafloor at active mid-ocean faults.</p><p>Most of the carbon stored in the Earth's crust is in the form of limestone, created from the carbon-based shells of marine organisms that sank to the ocean floor millions of year ago.</p><p>Carbon dioxide is added to the air when volcanoes erupt, and it is taken out of the air as rocks and mountain ranges weather and wear down. These processes typically take millions of years to add or subtract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.</p><p>In the present day, volcanoes add only a little carbon dioxide to the air, around <a href="https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm" target="_blank">1% of what human activity is currently contributing</a>. But there have been times in the past where volcanic activity has been vastly greater and has spewed large amounts of carbon dioxide into the air.</p><p>An example is around 250 million years ago, when prolonged volcanic activity raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels dramatically. These were volcanic eruptions on a vast scale - lasting for around two million years and <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171002105227.htm" target="_blank">causing a mass extinction</a>.</p><p>In the more recent geological past, the past 50 million years, carbon dioxide levels have been gradually dropping overall and the climate has been cooling, with some ups and downs. Once carbon dioxide concentrations became low enough (around 300 parts per million) between two and three million years ago, the current ice age cycle began, but the warming our emissions are causing is larger than the natural cooling trend.</p><p>While Earth's climate has changed significantly in the past, it happened on geological time scales. The carbon in the oil and coal we burn represents carbon dioxide taken up by vegetation hundreds of millions of years ago and then deposited through geological processes over millennia. We have burned a significant proportion within a few centuries.</p><p>If human emissions of carbon dioxide continue to increase through this century, we could reach levels <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters" target="_blank">not seen for tens of millions of years</a>, when Earth had a much warmer climate with much higher sea levels and no ice sheets. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/james-renwick-460484" target="_blank"><em style="">James Renwick</em></a><em> is a </em><em>Professor, Physical Geography (climate science) at Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington.</em></p><p><em></em><em>Disclosure statement: </em><em>James Renwick receives funding from the NZ Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment. He is affiliated with the NZ Climate Change Commission.</em></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-what-caused-major-climate-change-in-the-past-137874" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- 3 Connections Between Climate Change and Extreme Weather ... ›
- 'Brilliant' Climate Change Cartoon Goes Viral After Elon Musk, John ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
According to researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Louisiana experiences one of the highest rates of sea level rise on the planet, as evidenced by this home on stilts on August 24, 2019 in Grand Isle, Louisiana. Drew Angerer / Getty Images
By Alistair Walsh
Global sea levels will probably rise by even more than currently predicted, scientists warned on Friday.
<p><br/></p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from </em><em><a href="https://www.dw.com/en/sea-levels-could-rise-13-meters-by-2100-scientists-warn/a-53367946?maca=en-VAM_volltext_ecowatch-28485-html-copypaste" target="_blank">Deutsche Welle</a>.</em><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/r/entryeditor/2645952057#/" target="_self"></a></p>
<p>Even if nations are able to achieve their Paris-Agreement commitment to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the oceans will still rise by about 0.5 meters (1.6 feet) by the end of the century and as much as 2 meters by 2300, a new study found.</p><p>If nations fail to act, and current emissions lead to warming of 4.5 degrees, then sea levels are predicted to rise between 0.6 and 1.3 meters by 2100 and between 1.7 and 5.6 meters by 2300.</p><p>The predictions are based on a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-0121-5" target="_blank">survey of 106 of the world's leading sea level researchers</a>, carried out by scientists from Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and co-authored by researchers from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and published in the Nature Partner Journal Climate and Atmospheric Science.</p>
Mitigation Is 'In Our Hands'
<p>"What we do now within a few decades will determine sea-level rise for many centuries, the new analysis shows more clearly than ever before," PIK's Stefan Rahmstorf said. "But this is also good news: when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, we have it in our own hands how much we increase the risks for millions of people on the world's coasts, from Hamburg to Shanghai and from Mumbai to New York.</p><p>The predictions are higher than those currently published by the <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/what-is-the-ipcc-and-what-does-it-do/a-50552119" target="_blank">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)</a>, which has already increased its predictions.</p><p>In September 2019, the UN climate science panel found that <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/ipcc-15-c-degree-report-points-to-high-stakes-of-climate-inaction/a-45791882" target="_blank">unmitigated climate change would lead to a sea level rise</a> of between 0.61 meters and 1.1 meters by 2100. At the time it said the forecast could be conservative due to the speed at which Antarctic ice could melt.</p><p>Friday's report said the increased forecast came from better data and improved understanding of climate processes.</p>Data for Decision Makers
<p>"The complexity of the sea-level rise projections and the sheer volume of relevant scientific publications makes it difficult for policy makers to gain an overview of the state of research," NTU's Benjamin Horton said in a statement.</p><p>"For such an overview, it is therefore useful to ask leading experts what kind of sea-level rise they expect — this gives a broader picture of future scenarios and provides policymakers with the information they need to decide on the necessary measures."</p>From Your Site Articles
- Greenland Ice Sheet Melt Creates Huge Waterfalls, Increasing ... ›
- Sea Level Rise Has Already Cost 8 East Coast States More Than ... ›
- Worst Case Sea Level Rise by Century's End Could Be Doubled ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
By Alex Matthews
Every year 150 climate scientists fly far into the wilderness and bore deep into Greenland's largest glacier. Their work is complicated and important. The EastGRIP project is trying to understand how ice streams underneath the glacier are pushing vast amounts of ice into the ocean, and how this contributes to rising sea levels. But this year the drills will be silent. The ice streams will go unmeasured.
<p>The reason is the coronavirus. The fallout from <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-eu-internal-borders-could-stay-shut/a-53002172" target="_blank">measures to contain</a> the outbreak have made the research impossible. Greenland is closed to foreigners. Its government is worried any outbreak could be particularly dangerous to its indigenous population and rapidly overwhelm its health services.</p><p>Even if the country were open, it just isn't practical to bring an international team of scientists together, 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) away from the nearest airport, in case one of them is sick. The transport planes that normally fly in the teams and resupply them have also been grounded. Nobody wants to be responsible for bringing small, isolated communities into contact with the virus. </p>
Going Without Results
<p>The scientists are missing out on a lot. They were hoping to complete the 2,660-meter (8,727-feet) hole they have been drilling for the past five years, and finally access the ice streams they've been hunting for.</p><p>"We were actually hoping to reach the bedrock this year, which is super exciting, as we are down where the ice stream flow really is important," explains Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor of Ice, Climate and Earth at the University of Copenhagen and chairperson for EastGRIP's steering committee.</p><p>"How does this ice actually flow? That really is what we have been waiting for for five years, what was going to happen this year. All of that has now been put back. We will have to live without the results." </p>Damaged Equipment
<p>When the team returns next year, it's data and understanding they will have lost. Another year of snow will have buried trenches and covered equipment, meaning they will spend more time repairing and replacing buildings and hardware. </p><p>It's a problem faced by Dr Ken Mankoff and the team he works with at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. They are examining the health of the ice sheets in Greenland and monitoring snowfall. They also have monitoring equipment in the field that could fail if they cannot reach it, leaving gaps in data that has been collected for decades. </p><p>"In the worst-case scenario there will be a 12-month gap," he says. "Some of that data can be filled in with satellites and remote sensing, other parts are unique and will be lost."</p>Junior Scientists' Careers Affected
<p>Dahl-Jensen and Mankoff will have to wait until they can return to their respective sites and hope the loss of data won't upset their research too much. For now, both say they are happier remaining at home and keeping themselves, their teams and everyone else they would otherwise encounter safe.</p><p>But for younger scientists, those working on research with short-term funding, and those working towards academic qualifications on a timescale, the lack of results is a much bigger problem. The <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/german-research-vessel-begins-yearlong-drift-through-arctic-ocean/a-50706787" target="_blank">next generation of climate scientists will be affected</a>. </p><p>"There are junior colleagues, and this will have a significant impact on their career if they cannot get the data for the project that they need to do their work," says Mankoff. "My attitude will not be shared by everybody else, and I doubt it is."</p>Most Productive Time of the Year
<p>Someone who can relate is Dr Joran Moen, director of the University Center in Svalbard (UCIS) in Norway, the world's northernmost higher education institution. The school was shutdown and fieldwork cancelled, following orders from the Norwegian government. Around 70 students in Svalbard alone will be unable to complete fieldwork contributing to masters degrees or PhDs.</p><p>"The transition from March to June is a very important time for operations and for monitoring climate change in the area," he says. "We are in a part of the Arctic with a very dramatic change due to the temperature rapidly changing. It's a very good place to be to see how mankind can influence the climate and the effects of it."</p><p>"As for data gaps, the entire international community on Svalbard will have that problem, and of course that will also impact on our research. For students to be missing something like this in their research is a problem." </p>Waiting Game
<p>Moen and the UCIS have made provisions for as much education as possible to continue. Classes have moved online and small, risk-free research trips are still being planned. Dahl-Jensen and Mankoff are waiting to see when they can reach their equipment, and planning how much extra work they may have to do in the snow.</p><p>Climate science is also waiting, to see when it will continue, and just how vital the missing data will be. </p>From Your Site Articles
- The Past 5 Years Were the Arctic's Warmest on Record - EcoWatch ›
- Researchers Warn Arctic Has Entered 'Unprecedented State' That ... ›
- We Are Failing to Protect the Arctic From the Climate Crisis, Report ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A gas flare from the Shell Chemical LP petroleum refinery illuminates the sky on August 21, 2019 in Norco, Louisiana. Drew Angerer / Getty Images.
Methane levels in the atmosphere experienced a dramatic rise in 2019, preliminary data released Sunday shows.
<p>The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that methane levels increased by 11.54 parts per billion (ppb) in 2019 over 2018 levels, the largest increase since 2014. "Last year's jump in methane is one of the biggest we've seen over the past twenty years," Rob Jackson, professor of Earth system science at Stanford University and chair of the Global Carbon Project, told Bloomberg.</p>
<p>"It's too early to say why, but increases from both agriculture and natural gas use are likely. Natural gas consumption surged more than two percent last year." In the United States, the fossil fuel industry is the largest source of methane pollution, and emissions from the oil and gas sector have grown at least 40% over the last decade. </p>
<h4>For a deeper dive:</h4><p><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-06/methane-emissions-hit-a-new-record-and-scientists-can-t-say-why" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a>, <a href="Renewable%20Sources%20Made%20up%2072%%20of%20New%20Energy%20Added%20in%202019" target="_blank">The Hill</a>, <a href="https://climatenexus.org/climate-change-news/methane-surge/?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=85944970&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8C0yCNC7TWzjZEJq0igia-QWOy4iub7Sn8fOwOt3QloNO9PwifgZDyoLzWQXRgaT9jHlohnP5UKzH35BKjo9KjuuSd8w&_hsmi=85944970" target="_blank">Climate Signals</a></p><p><em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, and sign up for daily </em><a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Carbon Emissions Rise to Highest Level in at Least Three Million ... ›
- New 3D Methane Models Help NASA to Track Global Trends ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A protester left a "Science Makes America Great" sign in front of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Science March in Washington on Earth Day, Saturday, April 22, 2017. Bill Clark / CQ Roll Call
By Michael Halpern
Now, for some good news: the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that UCS's lawsuit challenging the politicization of EPA science advisory committees may move forward. UCS sued the agency over a new directive that prohibits EPA grant-funded scientists from serving on these committees.
<p>The ban makes it easier for the EPA to improperly influence its advisory committees at the expense of independent advice that actually reflects the best available science. A February court decision in a different case found that EPA <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-halpern/court-rebukes-epas-ban-on-independent-science-advisors" target="_blank">failed to provide justification for the scientist ban</a>.</p>
<p>The First Circuit found that under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the EPA must ensure that its advisory committees are sufficiently balanced so that they can provide independent advice. "FACA clearly requires agency heads at least to consider whether new restraints on committee membership might inappropriately enhance special interest influence and to eschew such restraints when they do so," wrote the First Circuit.</p><p>UCS and co-plaintiff Dr. Elizabeth A. (Lianne) Sheppard, a professor at the University of Washington School of Public Health, are represented pro bono by law firm Jenner & Block and legal nonprofit <a href="https://protectdemocracy.org/update/pd-ucs-epa-advisory-committee-member/" target="_blank">Protect Democracy</a>. "We're very pleased with the First Circuit's decision," said Lindsay Harrison with Jenner & Block. "This case is an important victory for scientific integrity."</p><p>These arbitrary exclusions make it easier for the agency to manipulate the policymaking process and avoid accountability for the decisions they make. Since we filed our lawsuit, the EPA has further politicized its science advice processes, <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/particulate-matter-science-experts" target="_blank">completely eliminating some advisory panels</a> and <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-trump-administration-abandons-science-advice-but-at-what-cost/" target="_blank">stacking existing committees and boards with industry representatives</a>.</p>
<p>"Now more than ever, we need scientists and experts guiding policy-making in this country," said Protect Democracy counsel Jamilla Benkato. "In a functioning democracy, those with expertise must have a seat at the table and must not be silenced because elected officials don't like what they have to say."</p><p>The constraints on science advice have already meant that the agency's scientific advisory panels have <a href="https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060808515" target="_blank">lacked the expertise necessary to inform the EPA's decision on air pollution standards</a>.</p><p>The scientists who are doing the most relevant research should be able to give science advice to EPA on current and emerging public health threats. We look forward to this case moving forward and demonstrating the impact that the scientist ban has on the agency's ability to protect public health and the environment.</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-halpern/big-ucs-win-court-questions-epa-limits-on-science-advisory-committees" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- 'Science Under Siege' From Trump Admin: New Report Warns We ... ›
- EPA Limits Independent Science Advisors, Provokes Conflict of ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Approximately 210,000 gallons of crude oil leaked out of a 16-inch pipeline just south of Staples, MN, in Dec. 2009. MN Pollution Control Agency / CC BY-NC 2.0
By Tara Lohan
The New York Times keeps a running list of all the environmental regulations that the Trump administration has worked to trash since taking office more than three years ago.
<p>It's at nearly 100.</p>
<p>That's just the start. The administration's anti-environmental agenda has also involved undermining and unraveling key government agencies, most especially the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).</p><p>There it's been death by a thousand cuts, with <a href="https://therevelator.org/resistance-trump-epa/" target="_blank">EPA staff</a> facing untenable contracts, positions left unfilled and budget cuts across the board — not mention an appointed leadership that's opposed to the agency's own mission.</p><p>As bad as all this sounds, there's some important historical context to remember: It's been bad for a while, according to a new book, <a href="https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781538131503/The-War-on-the-EPA-America's-Endangered-Environmental-Protections" target="_blank"><em>The War on the EPA: America's Endangered Environmental Protections</em></a>, which tracks the "systematic propaganda campaign to discredit science" that began decades ago.</p>
<p>The book comes from the keyboards of husband-and-wife writing team William and Rosemary Alley, also the authors of <a href="http://www.alleyandalley.com/the-books.html" target="_blank">two other environmental books</a> on nuclear waste and groundwater.</p><p>"We wanted to write a good, readable book giving people more understanding of why this agency is important, what they do, and the difficulties involved in doing their job," says Rosemary.</p><p>They realized that in order to save the EPA, people need to know what it does — and a lot of people don't.</p>
<p>"We are trying to get people to understand how this matters to them in their daily lives," says William, who is also the director of science and technology for the National Ground Water Association and headed the office of groundwater for the U.S. Geological Survey for nearly two decades. "There's a lot that EPA does, like when we drink water from the tap, we're dependent on EPA."</p><p>Unfortunately, when people do talk about the EPA, it's usually misguided complaints.</p><p>"There's been a long demonizing of the EPA for over-regulating things, but the reality is that it's extremely difficult for EPA to regulate anything," Rosemary says.</p><p>Case in point: Despite a slew of new chemicals in our daily lives, it's been two decades since a new regulation addressed a drinking-water contaminant.</p><p>The Alleys also write about the complicated and time-consuming processes behind lots of other regulations — tracking how they were first established and what happened afterward. In many cases environmental regulations were loosened to accommodate industry after political pushback or legal challenges.</p>
<p>This plays out time and time again throughout the Alleys' book. Among the cases they cover: why feedlots continue to pollute waterways; what went wrong in Flint, Michigan; the long battle to remove lead from gasoline and continuing efforts to make cars cleaner; the continuing fight over what constitutes "waters of the United States"; President Obama's work to reduce mercury from coal plants and methane emissions from oil and gas operations — and Trump's push to undo those and many other regulations.</p><p>It's clear from the book that enacting protections to safeguard human health and the environment has always been an uphill battle — and that narrative runs alongside the agency's own successful creation story, as the Alleys also explain.</p><p>The 1970s saw the establishment of the EPA with bipartisan support from Congress (after a veto by Nixon) and the creation of bedrock environmental laws including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.</p>
<p>And for the first 10 years things went pretty well.</p><p>Part of the early success of the EPA came from strong public involvement, the Alleys say. In those days many environmental problems were incredibly visible — gray clouds of smog and trash dumped along riverbanks — and there was public pushback to fix them.</p><p>But in 1981 President Ronald Reagan appointed Anne Gorsuch to lead the agency, and she threw down every speed bump and roadblock she could to impede the agency's work. Budgets were slashed, positions were cut and industry leaders were put in charge of environmental programs.</p><p>It's nearly identical to the tactics the Trump administration has used in recent years.</p><p>Things improved slightly after William Ruckelshaus, the agency's first administrator, was brought back in 1983. But when Newt Gingrich took control of the House of Representatives a decade later, the anti-science work began again and has continued ever since.</p>
<p>With Trump's election it kicked into high gear.</p><p>"We could have just as easily titled the book <em>The War on Science,</em> because science is just the absolute critical underpinnings of everything the EPA does, and that of course has been just tremendously damaged under the current administration," says Rosemary. "The war on science, of course, didn't start with Trump, but it's been exacerbated tremendously."</p><p>After detailing how this anti-science agenda influences making and enforcing environmental regulations, the Alleys' book ends with a look at why it will be critical to rebuild the EPA and the importance of scientific integrity.</p><p>"A lot of talent has been lost from the agency and that will be impossible to turn around overnight," says William. "If we have four more years of this, I have no idea how we'll get past that. [The Trump administration] is still rushing to try to get as much as they possibly can done. Or undone, as it seems."</p><p>Rosemary says she hopes that their book will provide an important jumpstart to conversations about the critical role of the EPA and efforts to fortify it.</p><p>"If you don't see what the agency does, it's hard to communicate the risk when it's damaged," she says. "We want people to understand why we need a strong EPA as much today as we did 50 years ago."</p><p><span></span><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://therevelator.org/war-on-science-epa/">The Revelator</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
- New Report Details Trump's Destructive War on Science—And How ... ›
- Trump Admin 'Waging a War on Children' Through EPA Rollbacks ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Yellow trout lily flowers nearly a week earlier now than in previous decades in the Appalachian Mountains. Katja Schulz / Wikipedia / CC BY
Across much of the U.S., a warming climate has advanced the arrival of spring. This year is no exception. In parts of the Southeast, spring has arrived weeks earlier than normal and may turn out to be the warmest spring on record.
<p>
Apple blossoms in March and an earlier start to picnic season may seem harmless and even welcome. But the early arrival of springtime warmth has many downsides for the natural world and for humans.<em></em>
</p>
<p class="">
<em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/spring-is-arriving-earlier-across-the-us-and-thats-not-always-good-news-129967">The Conversation</a>.</em>
</p><script async="async" data-counter="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/129967/count?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" id="theconversation_tracker_hook" src="https://theconversation.com/javascripts/lib/content_tracker_hook.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<p>Rising temperatures in the springtime <a href="http://www.nurserycropscience.info/ipm/scouting-monitoring/technical-pubs/herms-2004-using-degree-days-plant-phenology-to.pdf" target="_blank">signal plants and animals to come alive</a>. Across the U.S. and worldwide, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" rel="noopener noreferrer">climate change</a> is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0067-3" target="_blank">steadily disrupting</a> the arrival and interactions of leaf buds, cherry blossoms, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/insects" rel="noopener noreferrer">insects</a> and more.</p><p>In my work as a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3FUDzuIAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao" target="_blank">plant ecologist</a> and director of the <a href="http://www.usanpn.org/" target="_blank">USA National Phenology Network</a>, I coordinate efforts to track the timing of seasonal events in plants and animals. Dramatically earlier spring activity has been documented in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01404.x" target="_blank">hundreds of species</a> around the globe.</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="16d7276b547be4d375fec867f56f4a35"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wsSoqcVAhpo?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Lilies, Blueberries, Birds and More … All Sped Up
<p>Records managed by the USA National Phenology Network and other organizations prove that spring has accelerated over the long term. For example, the common yellow trout lily <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-019-00956-7" target="_blank">blooms nearly a week earlier</a> in the Appalachian Mountain region than it did 100 years ago. Blueberries in Massachusetts <a href="https://www.wbur.org/news/2017/07/12/studying-climate-change-walden-pond" target="_blank">flower three to four weeks earlier</a> than in the mid-1800s. And over a recent 12-year period, over half of 48 migratory bird species studied <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02045-z" target="_blank">arrived at their breeding grounds up to nine days earlier</a> than previously.</p><p>Warmer spring temperatures have also led <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12452" target="_blank">beetles, moths</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12920" target="_blank">butterflies</a> to emerge earlier than in recent years. Similarly, hibernating species like <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/srep11580" target="_blank">frogs</a> and <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/04/150413-utah-bears-hibernation-warm-winter-climate-science/" target="_blank">bears</a> emerge from hibernation earlier in warm springs.</p><p>All species don't respond to warming the same way. When species that depend on one another — such as pollinating insects and plants seeking pollination - don't respond similarly to changing conditions, populations suffer.</p><p>In Japan, the spring-flowering ephemeral <em>Corydalis ambigua</em> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1890/12-2003.1" target="_blank">produces fewer seeds</a> than in previous decades because it now flowers earlier than when bumblebees, its primary pollinators, are active. Similarly, populations of pied flycatchers – long-distance migrating birds that still arrive at their breeding grounds at the regular time – are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04539" target="_blank">declining steeply</a>, because populations of caterpillars that the flycatchers eat now peak prior to the birds' arrival.</p>Warmth Followed by Frost Can Kill
<p>Earlier springs can devastate valuable farm crops. Cherry, peach, pear, apple and plum trees blossom during early warm spells. Subsequent frost can kill the blooms, which means the trees will not produce fruit.</p><p>In March 2012, Michigan cherry blossoms opened early after temperatures climbed into the 80s. Then at least 15 frosts from late March through May <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/science-july-dec12-michigancherry_08-15" target="_blank">destroyed 90% of the crop</a>, causing US$200 million in damages. And in 2017, after Georgia peach trees flowered during an extremely early warm spell, frost killed <a href="https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/georgia-peach-crop-decimated-after-warm-winter/3SFVEukXWLLJB0zSox9i4M/" target="_blank">up to 80% of the crop</a>.</p><p>Early springs also affect ornamental plants and gardens. They hasten <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0212010" target="_blank">allergy symptoms</a> and the appearance of <a href="http://www.totallandscapecare.com/green-industry-news/phenology-maps/" target="_blank">turf pests</a>. Popular species like tulips open up sooner than they used to a decade or more ago. In recent years, tulips have bloomed before "tulip time" festivals in <a href="https://whotv.com/2019/04/26/tulips-in-bloom-in-pella-ahead-of-annual-celebrations/" target="_blank">Iowa</a>, <a href="https://www.oregonlive.com/travel/2016/02/tulip_festival_expected_to_blo.html" target="_blank">Oregon</a> and <a href="https://www.michiganradio.org/post/blossoms-ahead-schedule-holland-s-tulip-time-festival" target="_blank">Michigan</a>.</p><p>Cherry trees around Washington D.C.'s Tidal Basin bloom at <a href="https://www.nps.gov/subjects/cherryblossom/bloom-watch.htm" target="_blank">dramatically different times from year to year</a>. They are expected to bloom <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027439" target="_blank">weeks in advance</a> of the National Cherry Blossom Festival in the coming decades.</p><div id="30314" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="KZ6N821583431512"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1227703051814875141" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">It's been an early spring in the southeastern U.S. What are you seeing?
https://t.co/X9fEltVoLs https://t.co/dkN1zScMqD</div> — ISeeChange (@ISeeChange)<a href="https://twitter.com/iseechange/statuses/1227703051814875141">1581542191.0</a></blockquote></div>
Springtime Shifts by Region
<p>The start of spring isn't advancing at the same rate across the U.S. In <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085251" target="_blank">a recent study</a> with <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=A74aBb8AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao" target="_blank">climatologist Michael Crimmins</a>, I evaluated changes in the arrival of springtime warmth over the past 70 years.</p><p>We found that in the Northeast, warmth associated with the leading edge of springtime activity has advanced by about six days over the past 70 years. In the Southwest, the advancement has been approximately 19 days. Spring is also arriving significantly earlier in the Southern Rockies and the Pacific Northwest. In contrast, in the Southeast the timing of spring has changed little.</p>How Much Earlier Is Spring?
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjg0NDMwOC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNDA0NTgyNn0.88lEnl9pHbNcRYbHuAFuzxgx2bOheQltbGjXfZNUUAY/img.png?width=980" id="de124" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="18e75bfd42315b547caaddddf4bac7bf" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />In some parts of the U.S., spring is starting, on average, 6 to 18 days earlier than it has in the past. The Conversation / CC-BY-ND Source / Crimmins, T.M. and M.A. Crimmins. 2019 Get the data
<p>Although the trend over decades toward earlier springs is clear, weather patterns unfolding across the continent can vary the start of the season dramatically from year to year at any one spot. The <a href="http://www.usanpn.org/" target="_blank">USA National Phenology Network</a> produces maps that document the onset of biological activity over the course of the spring season.</p><p>The network also maintains a <a href="https://www.usanpn.org/news/spring" target="_blank">live map</a> showing where spring has arrived. In some parts of the Southeast, spring 2020 has been the earliest in decades.</p>Help Scientists Document Change
<p>While numerous studies have documented clear changes in the timing of activity in certain plants and animals, scientists have little to no information on the cycles of most of the millions of species on Earth. Nor do they know the consequences of such changes yet.</p><p>One important way to fill knowledge gaps is documenting what's happening on the ground. The USA National Phenology Network runs a program called <a href="http://www.naturesnotebook.org/" target="_blank">Nature's Notebook</a> suited for people of nearly all ages and skill levels to track seasonal activity in plants and animals. Since the program's inception in 2009, participants have contributed more than 20 million records.</p><p>These data have been used in over <a href="https://www.usanpn.org/publications" target="_blank">80 studies</a>, and we are looking for more observations from the public that can help scientists understand what causes nature's timing to change, and what the consequences are. We welcome new volunteers who can help us unravel these mysteries.</p>From Your Site Articles
- California's Rainless February Points to Dangerous Drought, Early ... ›
- 10 Tricks and Gadgets to Freshen Up Your Garden This Spring ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Longtime Climate Science Foe David Schnare Uses 'Scare Tactics' to Bash Transportation Climate Initiative for Koch-Tied Think Tank
04 March
Climate
Diego Diaz / Icon Sportswire / Getty Images
Opponents of a regional proposal to curb transportation sector emissions in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic are using a number of deceptive tactics to attack and criticize the Transportation and Climate Initiative. Groups tied to the oil industry have pointed to misleading studies, deployed questionable public opinion polling and circulated an open letter in opposition.
<p>In Virginia, a conservative think tank is now <a href="https://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/files/3/Legal%20Analysis%20News%20Release.pdf" target="_blank">touting a biased analysis</a>, dismissed by critics as misleading "scare tactics," authored by anti-environmental attorney <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/david-schnare" target="_blank">David Schnare</a>, that questions Virginia's legal authority to participate in the regional program. <em></em></p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/03/longtime-climate-science-foe-david-schnare-uses-scare-tactics-bash-transportation-climate-initiative-koch-tied-think">DeSmog</a>.</em></p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.transportationandclimate.org/" target="_blank">Transportation and Climate Initiative</a> aims to reduce carbon emissions from on-road vehicles by up to 25 percent over 10 years through a cap-and-invest model, whereby fuel suppliers and distributors would purchase allowances allocated under the cap, and proceeds would be invested into clean transportation initiatives. The program is modeled after the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative for the power sector, which is <a href="https://www.c2es.org/content/regional-greenhouse-gas-initiative-rggi/" target="_blank">expected to result</a> in <span style="background-color: initial;">CO2</span> emission reductions of 45 percent below 2005 levels by this year. But critics of the <span style="background-color: initial;">TCI</span> proposal, many of whom also opposed <span style="background-color: initial;">RGGI</span>, claim that it will do little to cut emissions and is just a scheme to raise gas prices, equivalent to a gas tax.</p><p>According to a <a href="https://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/files/3/TCI%20Legal%20Analysis.pdf" target="_blank">legal analysis</a> on Virginia's participation in the program, published by the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/thomas-jefferson-institute-public-policy" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy</a>, "TCI proposes rationing gasoline and diesel fuel sales and initiating a per gallon gas tax hike." <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/david-schnare" target="_blank">David Schnare</a>, who wrote the analysis, claims that the program would impose not a fee but a tax and therefore requires authorization by the state legislature. Virginia's governor, Schnare says, does not have unilateral authority to join TCI. Schnare also threatens to sue should Virginia attempt to join TCI without authorization by the legislature. </p><p>"We hope the Governor simply chooses to withdraw," Schnare <a href="https://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/files/3/Legal%20Analysis%20News%20Release.pdf" target="_blank">said</a>. "But any effort to impose TCI unilaterally without the General Assembly will certainly be met with appropriate legal action."</p><p>"Nothing in the TCI program would ration gasoline and motor fuels. TCI would simply put a limit on climate pollution," said Mark Kresowik, eastern region deputy director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, emphasizing that TCI is not a tax by any legal standard. </p>
David Schnare's Long History Attacking Climate Science and Defending Fossil Fuel Interests
<p>Schnare is currently the Director of the Center for Environmental Stewardship at the Thomas Jefferson Institute, and both he and <span style="background-color: initial;">TJI</span> are part of a larger network linked with fossil fuel interests that work against climate and environmental protection policies.</p><p>The Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy is a member of the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/state-policy-network" target="_blank">State Policy Network</a>, a Koch-backed web of right-wing think tanks promoting climate science denial and other policy positions that benefit corporate donors. The Jefferson Institute has received funding from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/donors-capital-fund" target="_blank">Donors Capital Fund</a> ($214,450) and Donors Trust ($5,000), anonymous funding vehicles supporting a number of organizations that promote conservative and free enterprise interests. As DeSmog has <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/donors-capital-fund" target="_blank">noted</a>, "the groups and projects given grants from DCF and DT are among the most active in questioning the link between fossil fuel emissions and climate change and blocking attempts to legislate against greenhouse gas emissions." The Jefferson Institute is one such group, and was called out by name by <a href="https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/senators-call-out-web-of-denial-blocking-action-on-climate-change" target="_blank">Senate Democrats in 2016 in a series of speeches denouncing climate change denial</a> from 32 organizations with links to fossil-fuel interests. </p><p>Schnare is a former EPA scientist and attorney and initially was a member of President Trump's EPA transition team. He is affiliated with climate denial groups like the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute" target="_blank">Heartland Institute</a>, and was a speaker at the 2017 Heartland Institute "America First Energy Conference," where he <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXtFGeo1lJQ&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">discussed</a> how to challenge the EPA's 2009 endangerment finding that serves as the basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions.</p><p>Schnare has a history of harassing climate scientists by suing universities to get access to the scientists' emails. In 2011, he unsuccessfully sued the University of Virginia to try to obtain Michael Mann's emails. As DeSmog previously reported, Schnare was <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/27/david-schnare-forced-to-disgorge-dark-money-from-fmelc-piggy-bank" target="_blank">forced to pay out $630,000 from a dark money group</a> he co-founded with <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/chris-horner" target="_blank">Christopher Horner</a>, the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/free-market-environmental-law-clinic" target="_blank">Free Market Environmental Law Clinic</a>. The payout resulted from a heated legal dispute in which Schnare is alleged to have used FMELC as his personal piggy bank. </p>Schnare's Reports Use Disinformation as “Scare Tactics”
<p>Given this background, it is not surprising that Schnare and the Thomas Jefferson Institute are railing against the proposed Transportation and Climate Initiative. <span style="background-color: initial;">TJI</span> and Schnare have <a href="https://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/" target="_blank">published</a> several misleading analyses of the program claiming it is a "carbon car tax" and would be "all pain and no gain," claims that are simply untrue. The latest legal analysis is a continuation of Schnare making these unfounded arguments. For example, Schnare's claim that <span style="background-color: initial;">TCI</span> "proposes rationing gasoline and diesel fuel sales" is blatantly false, as sources familiar with the program told DeSmog.</p><p>"This is a pollution reduction program," said Bruce Ho, senior advocate in the climate and clean energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The type of policy [Schnare and TJI] are describing in their paper is not the policy that states are actually proposing." </p><p>"The oil industry and its allies are going heavy on the scare tactics right now," added Morgan Butler, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. "TCI is not being designed to ration gas, but rather to help move us beyond it by investing revenues from the program in making cleaner and healthier transportation options more available to everyone." </p><p>Schnare's claim that Virginia's governor cannot unilaterally join TCI is also not accurate. As Kresowik explained, the governor does have authority to sign on to an agreement or memorandum of understanding (MOU), and then the legislature would have to act to implement the program in the state. </p><p>"The governor can absolutely sign the memorandum of understanding and move forward with the other states," Kresowik said. </p><p>"The hand waving in this paper that Virginia is doing something that's not allowed is just wrong," added Ho. "Neither Virginia nor any other TCI jurisdiction has proposed skirting those legal requirements. They've been very upfront that they are going to go through all of the legally required processes within states." </p><p>Ho said that Schnare's entire analysis is disingenuous, as it mischaracterizes what the TCI program is actually proposing. "It's a clear case of fear-mongering, setting up a straw man argument that is just not reflective of reality," he said. </p><p>Schnare's case against TCI runs counter to even oil giant BP's recent endorsement of the program. BP America Chairman and President Susain Dio, in a <a href="https://www.richmond.com/opinion/columnists/susan-dio-column-gov-northam-and-general-assembly-leaders-can/article_c7b4cbf5-0cd1-5ee0-a0bf-3c6ff6022579.html" target="_blank">piece published last week</a> in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, urged Virginia Governor Ralph Northam and the General Assembly to move forward with both TCI and RGGI. "While a national carbon pricing program would be the gold standard, state and regional plans can play a critical role now," Dio writes. "And we can't wait." BP's support of TCI falls inline with the company's <a href="https://www.desmog.co.uk/2020/02/14/new-bp-ceo-ends-greenwashing-ad-campaign" target="_blank">recent announcement that it will no longer lobby against policies that regulate or limit carbon pollution</a>. Though the sincerity of BP's statements are not yet clear, the company's surprise public support of TCI indirectly rebuts and counters both pieces of Schnare's flawed analysis. </p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Climate change headline in flaming newspaper. RapidEye / iStock / Getty Images
By Andy Rowell
Five years ago, the leading climate denial organization in the UK, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), published a pamphlet entitled: Carbon Dioxide, the good news.
<p>The paper reiterated many of the climate deniers' favorite, but long discredited, arguments. In many ways, the GWPF's claims on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-science">climate science</a> would be laughable if the ramifications were not so serious. They boil down to two main arguments: firstly, that there has been no warming and secondly, even if there has been warming, carbon dioxide is good for you.<em></em></p>
<p>The paper was written by Indur Goklany, described as "an independent scholar and author."</p><p>He stated that the "benefits of increasing carbon dioxide have been under-estimated" and that "the risks from increasing carbon dioxide have been overestimated."</p><p>Goklany continued: "there is little or no empirical evidence that the warming that has occurred — or any changes it may have caused — since the end of the last ice age or since the putative start of manmade warming around 1950is actually causing net harm or diminishing human or environmental wellbeing."</p><p>And also that: "the direct effects of higher carbon dioxide levels may benefit mankind and the natural world."</p><p>How anyone can describe tens of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers, along with numerous reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, along with hundreds if not thousands of other scientific assessments by Governmental panels or scientific bodies, plus thousands of credible reports by NGOs all describing our increasing climate crisis and the role that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide have had, as "no empirical evidence" — is beyond me. It is just plain stupid.</p>
<p>The deniers have long argued that CO2 is good for plant growth, and I had heard it in the early nineties at an OPEC conference, spoken by Dr. Richard Lindzen. At the time, the OPEC delegates lapped it up as a simplistic and fundamentally flawed argument that would allow them to carry on drilling with a so-called clean conscience.</p><p>Goklany has also written papers for other denier organizations such as the Cato Institute and the Heartland Institute. Over a decade ago, he appeared in a film entitled <em>Policy Peril: Why Global Warming Policies are More Dangerous than Global Warming Itself</em>.</p><p>It was made by Marlo Lewis, a Senior Fellow, from the <a href="https://cei.org/blog/policy-peril-looking-antidote-inconvenient-truth-your-search-over-updated-81009" target="_blank">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a>, which <a href="https://exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php" target="_blank">took millions from Exxon</a> to deny climate science.</p><p>But for years, Goklany's day job has been an official at the U.S. Interior Department. You can understand why someone like Goklany, with his die-hard denial views, would flourish well under Trump. And so when Trump was elected, he was promoted to the Office of the Deputy Secretary, with responsibility for reviewing the agency's climate policies.</p><p>Therefore, today's <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/climate/goks-uncertainty-language-interior.html" target="_blank">New York Times</a> story is on the one hand not surprising, but at the same time, deeply worrying.</p><p>The paper notes that Goklany "embarked on a campaign that has inserted misleading language about climate change — including debunked claims that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial — into the agency's scientific reports."</p>
<p>According to the Times, the misleading language appears in at least nine reports, and became so embedded in documents that it was colloquially known as "Goks uncertainty language." The Times outlined how in Interior Department emails to scientists, Goklany pushed "misleading interpretations of climate science" reminiscent of his GWPF briefing:</p><p>"Firstly, that we "may be overestimating the rate of global warming, for whatever reason," and secondly that rising CO2 was beneficial because it "may increase plant water use efficiency" and "lengthen the agricultural growing season."</p><p>As the Times points out: "Both assertions misrepresent the scientific consensus that overall, climate change will result in severe disruptions to global agriculture and significant reductions in crop yields."</p><p>Samuel Myers, a research scientist at Harvard University's Center for the Environment told the Times that the language "takes very specific and isolated pieces of science, and tries to expand it in an extraordinarily misleading fashion."</p><p>But that is what the climate deniers do: set out to mislead and confuse. The reviewers for Goklany's GWPF paper, included known climate skeptics Craig Idso and Will Happer. Both men authored a petition sent to <a href="http://priceofoil.org/2017/02/27/300-climate-deniers-tell-trump-to-burn-the-climate/" target="_blank">Trump in 2017</a>, asking him to withdraw the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.</p><p>Trump, Goklany, Lindzen, Idso, and Happer exist in a denial echo chamber. They will continue to deny the evidence as the earth warms and burns around them. We must resist this — with a new energy and vigor. In this new decade, we must ensure that the deniers' day is finally done. As Greta Thunberg and the millions of young climate activists demand every week: it is time to listen to the science.</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="http://priceofoil.org/2020/03/02/trump-official-embeds-discredited-denial-arguments-into-interior-dep-reports/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Oil Change International</a>. </em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Wheeler Appoints Climate Denier to EPA Science Board - EcoWatch ›
- Facebook Hires Koch-Funded Climate Deniers for 'Fact-Checking ... ›
- Koch-Connected Dark Money Funds Much More Than Climate Denial ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Some backcountry skiers and snowboarders are not just hitting the slopes. They're measuring how deep the snow is and sending the data to climate scientists.
<p>Listen here:<em></em></p>
<iframe style="border: none" src="//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/13184339/height/45/theme/standard/thumbnail/yes/direction/backward/" height="45" width="100%" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe><p>"Data is lacking in mountain areas across the globe and particularly in western North America," says Gabriel Wolken of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. "And if we don't have a better understanding of how snow is distributed in these areas, we have a limited amount of baseline data to evaluate changes in the future."</p><p>Wolken says melting mountain snow feeds rivers and lakes through the spring, summer, and fall. So understanding and predicting changes in the snowpack is important for managing water supplies.</p><p>But collecting data is time-consuming. So five years ago, when Wolken and other researchers were working in Alaska, they asked a local ski club for help.</p>
<p>"We gave them GPS and of course they all had avalanche probes in their backpacks," Wolken says. "And we said, 'OK, go out and sample as much as you can.'"</p><p>The effort was a success, and soon the NASA-funded <a target="_blank" href="http://communitysnowobs.org/">Community Snow Observations</a> project was born. Now, thousands of volunteers from around the world have submitted observations — serving science while they're out having fun.</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/02/skiers-and-snowboarders-send-snow-data-to-climate-scientists/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Yale Climate Connections</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- A Guilt-Free Day on the Slopes - EcoWatch ›
- Rising Temperatures Imperil Winter Sports Industry - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less